Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

All Menu

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
    + MORE
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Review

Split Viewer

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Stool DNA and Other Noninvasive Modalities

James R. Bailey*, Ashish Aggarwal*,†, and Thomas F. Imperiale*,‡,§

Author Info +

*Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, †Community Health Network, Indianapolis, IN, USA, ‡Regenstrief Institute Inc. and Center of Innovation, Indianapolis, IN, USA, §Health Services Research and Development, Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Correspondence to: James R. Bailey, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, 1120 West Michigan Street, Gatch Hall Room 626, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA, Tel: +1-317-988-2522, Fax: +1-317-278-2650, E-mail: jarobail@iupui.edu

Received: August 27, 2015; Accepted: October 29, 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver 2016;10(2):204-211. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl15420

Published online March 15, 2016, Published date March 15, 2016

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Abstract

Go to

Colorectal cancer screening dates to the discovery of pre-cancerous adenomatous tissue. Screening modalities and guidelines directed at prevention and early detection have evolved and resulted in a significant decrease in the prevalence and mortality of colorectal cancer via direct visualization or using specific markers. Despite continued efforts and an overall reduction in deaths attributed to colorectal cancer over the last 25 years, colorectal cancer remains one of the most common causes of malignancy-associated deaths. In attempt to further reduce the prevalence of colorectal cancer and associated deaths, continued improvement in screening quality and adherence remains key. Noninvasive screening modalities are actively being explored. Identification of specific genetic alterations in the adenoma-cancer sequence allow for the study and development of noninvasive screening modalities beyond guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing which target specific alterations or a panel of alterations. The stool DNA test is the first noninvasive screening tool that targets both human hemoglobin and specific genetic alterations. In this review we discuss stool DNA and other commercially available noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities in addition to other targets which previously have been or are currently under study.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer, Colorectal cancer screening, sDNA, Stool DNA

INTRODUCTION

Go to

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer both worldwide (1.23 million annual cases) and in the United States (132,700 annual cases).1,2 While CRC mortality in the United States has been falling since 1985, attributed to both uptake of screening and advancements in treatment, an estimated 49,700 die annually,3 suggesting the need for continued screening efforts. The basis of CRC screening dates to the discovery of precancerous adenomatous tissue,4 which led to the understanding of development of CRC through the “adenoma-carcinoma” sequence rather than directly arising from the colorectal mucosa.5,6 Screening allows for early detection of CRC and removal of precancerous lesions, leading to reductions in cancer incidence and mortality.7,8

Despite strong evidence for CRC screening,9 adherence to screening in the United States remains a challenge as only 65% of the eligible U.S. population is up-to-date with screening, while nearly 28% has never been screened.10 Challenges in increasing adherence have been attributed to patient and provider preferences, available resources, and healthcare infrastructure.11 Guidelines from several professional organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Multi-Society Task Force, American College of Gastroenterology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, provide both invasive and noninvasive options for CRC screening. While the American College of Gastroenterology considers colonoscopy to be preferred, other professional organizations recommend all options without preference.12-15 Despite these recommendations and patients’ preference for noninvasive screening in several studies, providers are more likely to recommend colonoscopy and may not present other options.16-18 Patients who choose colonoscopy report doing so because of its superior single-application sensitivity, as reflected in statistics on its use,19 while those that do not choose it report many reasons including difficulty in scheduling, cost, and missed work time in addition to concerns of modesty, procedure discomfort, and bowel preparation.20 Colonoscopy also carries risk, such as bleeding, perforation, and cardiorespiratory complications. Although the risks are low, they are particularly relevant for patients with comorbid conditions21 and may affect adherence. In an attempt to improve CRC screening and make available additional options without the risks and requirements of colonoscopy, noninvasive screening modalities are actively being explored.

In this review, noninvasive CRC screening modalities (Table 1, Fig. 1) will be discussed with a focus on stool DNA (sDNA). We will discuss the evolution of sDNA from proof of concept to its role in the current screening landscape. We will also briefly discuss other noninvasive screening tests, both established and in development.

GUAIAC-BASED FECAL OCCULT BLOOD TEST AND FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TEST

Go to

Noninvasive CRC screening in the United States started with annual guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT), which was first recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 1996,22 based on evidence from population-based randomized trials.23-25 gFOBT works by indirectly identifying hemoglobin through a peroxidase reaction. Annual gFOBT reduces CRCs mortality by as much as 33% over a 13-year follow-up and by 32% in 30-year follow up.23,26 Despite its mortality reduction, gFOBT has several limitations. CRC sensitivity of a single round of gFOBT is reported as 30% to 40% indicating the need for annual testing which improves sensitivity to 90% over a 5-year period.27,28 Although annual testing has a high programmatic sensitivity, some of the sensitivity is due to false positive results from other causes of occult bleeding, which leads to serendipitous detection of neoplastic findings.29,30 In addition to the high false positive rate, gFOBT has the disadvantages of low sensitivity for advanced adenomas, the need for dietary and medication restrictions, and a requirement for the collection of three consecutive stool samples for testing. These limitations led to the development of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

Through the use of globin-specific antibodies, FIT allows improved stool-based detection of human hemoglobin.31 FIT exists as both a qualitative and quantitative test with several qualitative tests available in the United States. Given the number of tests and varying cutoff levels for a positive result, interpretation of these tests and comparisons is challenging. A recently published meta-analysis showed FIT sensitivity and specificity for CRC to be 71% and 94%, among studies in which colonoscopy was the reference standard.32 In a large study in Taiwan, FIT samples were obtained in 4,045 subjects the day prior to colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy-based findings were then compared to the previously obtained FIT with findings of FIT sensitivity for non-advanced adenoma, advanced adenoma, and CRC of 10.6%, 28.0%, and 78.6%.33 Sensitivity varied based on location of left-sided versus right-sided lesions, with a decrease in the detection of more proximal lesions, although these findings have not held true in other studies.33,34 Large-scale, population-based trials comparing annual FIT to colonoscopy are in progress in Spain and the United States.35,36 Despite improved sensitivity in comparison to gFOBT,37 the need for only a single sample, and no dietary or medication restrictions,38,39 FIT has limitations, one of which is the decrease in sample reliability with prolongation of time from collection to analysis as positive FIT results decline from 8.7% at 1-4 days to 6% at ≥5 days, and 4.1% at ≥7 days.40 Other limitations include poor sensitivity for advanced adenomas33 and an unclear optimal threshold for hemoglobin detection.41

STOOL DNA TESTING

Go to

To further improve noninvasive screening, other methods have been and continue to be pursued. Development of CRC is associated with a series of progressive, cumulative mutations, including inactivation of tumor suppressor genes adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) and P53 and activation of the oncogene K-RAS.42,43 Identification of specific genetic alterations in CRC tumorigenesis and the knowledge that colonocytes are continuously shed set the stage for development of stool DNA (sDNA) as a screening test for CRC.44

The proof-of-concept study of sDNA for CRC screening by Ahlquist and colleagues involved 22 patients with known CRC, 11 with adenomas ≥1 cm, and 28 with a negative colonoscopy who had stool samples analyzed with a panel of 15 point mutations of K-RAS, p-53, APC, and BAT-26, a microsatellite instability marker. The panel was 91% sensitive for CRC and 82% sensitive for adenomas ≥1 cm with a specificity of 93%; analyzable DNA was obtained from all samples.45 Additional studies further supported use of sDNA for CRC screening by showing that all mutations within stool samples were also present in CRC tissue samples, and that specific tumor markers were no longer detectable in stool samples following surgical resection of CRC.46,47

Two screening population-based studies were conducted to evaluate first-generation sDNA test performance, both of which compared it to Hemoccult II (a gFOBT) and used colonoscopy as the reference standard. In one study, 2,507 average risk asymptomatic patients aged 50 or older were tested with a first-generation DNA panel, which included 21 point mutations of K-RAS, APC, BAT-26, and a DNA integrity assay. The sDNA panel had a CRC sensitivity of 52% versus 13% for Hemoccult II; sensitivity for high grade dysplastic adenomas was 32.5% for sDNA versus 15% for Hemoccult II, while respective CRC specificities were 94.4% and 95.2%.48 A second study using the same DNA panel in 4,482 average risk asymptomatic patients aged 50 or older showed a CRC sensitivity of 25% versus 50% for Hemoccult and 75% for the more sensitive gFOBT HemoccultSensa.49 Due to poor performance of the DNA panel, a second DNA panel was used during the latter part of the study that included APC and K-RAS mutations and methylation of the vimentin gene. This second panel showed higher sensitivity for CRC (58%) and in particular, for adenomas ≥1 cm (46%) when compared with Hemoccult II (10%) and HemoccultSensa (17%).49 These findings led to sDNA inclusion in screening criteria by some organizations12 but the test’s relatively low sensitivity and high cost resulted in only rare use in clinical practice.15

Several advances were made to improve both the marker panel and analytical methods to identify mutated DNA, resulting in greater sensitivity for the second generation sDNA tests. Long DNA degrades in storage, up to 75% in 1 day,50 indicating the need for human DNA preservation for improved detection. Addition of a stabilizing buffer to samples prevented bacterial degradation of human DNA.50 Identification of new markers51,52 and improvements in the analytical process including automation53 and development of advanced DNA stool extraction and mutant DNA detection techniques52,54,55 resulted in greater sensitivity, setting the stage for a new sDNA panel.

The second generation panel included four methylated genes (vimentin, NDRG4, BMP3, and TFPI2), a mutant form of KRAS, the α-actin gene (to serve as a control for specimen quality), and a hemoglobin assay. This panel was tested on archived stool specimens. Target gene sequences were identified directly by hybridization with oligonucleotide probes. These probes were identified by Sera-Mag carboxylate modified beads which were then eluted out by use of a magnetic rack. Methylated markers were quantified using the Quantitative Allele-specific Real-time Target and Signal Amplification Assay (QuARTS), a highly sensitive polymerase based DNA amplification process that utilizes invasive cleavage-based signal amplification.56 A hemoglobin assay was added, which was not affected by stool storage. This new panel was initially tested on 252 patients with CRC, 133 with adenomas ≥1 cm, and 293 with normal (i.e., “negative”) colonoscopy results served as controls. sDNA testing was 85% sensitive for CRC and 54% sensitive for adenomas ≥1 cm with a specificity of 90%.52 Anatomical location of CRC and adenoma did not affect the panel’s sensitivity.52 Further, sensitivity increased with adenoma size; as evidenced by sensitivity of 54% for adenomas ≥1 cm, 63% for adenomas >1 cm, 77% for adenomas >2 cm, 86% for adenomas >3 cm, and 92% for adenomas >4 cm.52 These findings provided impetus to test this new panel in a large screening trial using a similar marker panel and analytical process.

In the screening trial, 9,899 asymptomatic average risk individuals aged 50 to 84 years underwent testing with a multitarget sDNA panel and a comparator commercially-available FIT prior to undergoing screening colonoscopy, which served as the reference standard.57 The multitarget sDNA panel consisted of K-RAS point mutations, aberrantly methylated NDRG4 and BMP3, β-actin as a control indicator of DNA quantity, and a human hemoglobin immunochemical assay. The sDNA panel had a cancer sensitivity of 92.3% in comparison to 73.8% for FIT and a sensitivity of 42.4% for advanced precancerous polyps defined as advanced adenomas (adenomas with high grade dysplasia, with >25% villous histologic features, or measuring ≥1 cm) or sessile serrated polyp ≥1 cm versus 23.8% for FIT. The multitarget sDNA panel was significantly more sensitive than FIT although less specific (86.6% for sDNA vs 94.9% for FIT). Subgroup analyses (Table 2) showed that sDNA sensitivity did not vary with CRC stage or location whereas FIT sensitivity was lower for proximal cancers. In addition, sDNA was more sensitive than FIT for higher risk advanced precancerous lesions.57 These favorable results led to approval of this multitarget sDNA panel for CRC screening by the Food and Drug Administration in August of 2014 and its current commercial availability for CRC screening.

As expected, additional challenges remain with the uptake of sDNA as a screening test. Although the FDA-recommended test interval is 3 years, there is no direct data from longitudinal studies to support appropriateness of this interval. Studies are in progress to address this important issue. Appropriate management of persons with a positive sDNA test but a “negative” colonoscopy is uncertain and requires clarification. Acceptance of sDNA by patients and providers in clinical practice is yet to be determined. Additional concerns include the cost-effectiveness of sDNA testing every 3 years versus other tests and strategies. Studies have suggested that while sDNA is more cost-effective than no CRC screening, it is less cost-effective when compared to other screening strategies including FOBT, FIT, and endoscopic strategies58-60 However, cost-effectiveness may not be unfavorable if sDNA can capture more of the eligible population and result in improved adherence to CRC screening.58 Early data shows that as of June 2015, approximately 36,000 patients have been screened with sDNA (data from Exact Sciences Corp.) since it became clinically available,61 36% of whom were screened for the first time for CRC. There have been nearly 80,000 orders placed by 13,800 physicians with a 73% test completion rate (April to June 2015).61 Physician and patient selection of sDNA for CRC screening continues to increase as provider and patient education improves and insurance coverage for the test expands.

OTHER NONINVASIVE MARKERS

Go to

Other individual and panels of markers have been explored for their potential use as noninvasive screening tests, including microRNAs (miRNAs), plasma-based DNA, and stool proteins. We discuss these briefly in turn.

1. MicroRNAs

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short, endogenous, noncoding RNAs that regulate gene expression, thereby affecting various processes in tumorigenesis, including angiogenesis and metastasis.62 There has been great interest in looking at the expression of various miRNAs for detection of colorectal neoplasia. miR-21 is the most studied oncogenic miRNA that is upregulated in colon cancer. Studies of its test characteristics have been inconsistent, with one study from Japan showing that the miR-21 expression was similar in colonocytes from healthy volunteers as compared to patients with CRC.63 Another study from 2012, however, showed that stool miR-21 expression was increased in CRC subjects as compared to healthy controls although expression was no different between subjects with adenomatous polyps and those without.64 Plasma levels of another miRNA, miR-92, were higher in subjects with CRC and the levels were significantly reduced after surgery in 10 CRC subjects. At a cutoff of 240 (relative expression in comparison to RNU6B snRNA), the sensitivity and specificity were 89% and 70%, respectively, in discriminating CRC subjects from controls.65 Significant issues remain with respect to the optimal miRNA isolation technique, endogenous controls for serum based miRNAs, and the need to obtain test characteristics from a screening population.

2. Plasma-based DNA markers

Plasma-based DNA-markers, especially genes with aberrant methylation such as the SEPT9 gene, have been evaluated as potential screening targets for CRC and advanced adenomas. A multicenter prospective trial involving nearly 8,000 screening population subjects showed that the CRC sensitivity and specificity of circulating methylated SEPT9 DNA (mSEPT9) were 48% and 91.5%, respectively, while sensitivity for advanced adenomas was just 11%.66 In a case-control study comparing the test characteristics of a multimarker test for sDNA and mSEPT9, mSEPT9 was found to have significantly lower sensitivity for detection of both CRC (60%) and adenomas >1 cm (14%) as compared with sDNA (87% CRC sensitivity and 82% adenoma sensitivity).67 A recent case-control study from China evaluating a plasma-based second generation mSEPT9 assay showed CRC sensitivity and specificity of 74.8% and 87.4%, while advanced adenoma sensitivity was 27.4%. In this study, mSEPT9 showed higher sensitivity than FIT for CRC but not for advanced adenomas.68 The lower sensitivity of plasma-based tests may be related to the requirement of biomarker release into the bloodstream via vascular invasion in tumorigenesis, which likely happens at a later stage as compared to exfoliation upon which stool-based tests are based.69 This observation may also explain lower sensitivity of plasma-based tests for detection of advanced adenomas as compared to CRC as vascular invasion occurs at a later stage in tumorigenesis. The place of mSEPT9 in the CRC screening landscape is uncertain at this time.

3. Stool-based proteins

Among stool-based proteins, fecal calprotectin and M2 pyruvate kinase (M2-PK, a cancer-related fecal protein) have been the two most studied fecal protein markers for CRC screening. In the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial involving 2,321 asymptomatic subjects, performance of calprotectin was inferior to FIT, with lower sensitivity for CRC (67% vs 75%), high risk adenoma (25% vs 32%), and lower specificity (76% vs 90%).70 Studies of fecal M2-PK have shown inconsistent results,71,72 with CRC sensitivity ranging from 68%73 to 85%74 among several studies with a cutoff value of 4 U/mL. Results have varied based on the positive cutoff value used, ranging from a sensitivity of 92.1% and specificity of 29.7% for a cutoff of 1 U/mL to a sensitivity of 11.8% and specificity of 97.3% for a cutoff of 30 U/mL.71 A recent meta-analysis of eight studies of M2-PK with a cutoff value of 4 U/mL showed a pooled CRC sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 79% (confidence interval [CI], 73% to 83%), 80% (CI, 73% to 86%), and 85% (CI, 82% to 88%), suggesting that this marker may have potential as a screening test.75 However, further studies are needed in a screening population to accurately quantify its test characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Go to

The past 15 years have seen improvement in the uptake of CRC screening and reduction in CRC incidence and mortality in the United States. While colonoscopy is currently the dominant screening test in the United States, there is considerable interest in the development of accurate noninvasive screening tests, with notable improvements in stool-based tests in particular. Both FIT and sDNA provide viable noninvasive options to colonoscopy for average-risk persons. Both tests provide several advantages over colonoscopy, including ease of completion, low cost, and low risk. Ongoing research of sDNA will quantify its uptake, adherence, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness of the 3-year testing interval. FIT and sDNA, should be included as options in discussions of CRC screening between provider and patient, with expectation of improved adherence to screening. Continued development of noninvasive tests, improved understanding of optimal screening intervals, and greater ability to risk stratify are likely to improve the efficiency of and adherence to CRC screening.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Go to

Grant support: The Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Author contributions:

James R. Bailey: Literature review, manuscript development, composition.

Ashish Aggarwal: Literature review, manuscript development, composition.

Thomas F. Imperiale: Literature review, manuscript development, critical review.

Figures

Go to
Fig. 1.Timeline of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities. CMS, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; FOBT, fecal occult blood testing; sDNA, stool DNA; FIT, fecal immunochemical test.

Tables

Go to

Selected Characteristics of Noninvasive Screening Tests

Screening testStatusCRC sensitivity, % (95% CI)CRC specificity, % (95% CI)Advanced Adenoma ≥1 cm sensitivity, % (95% CI)Cost, $
gFOBT27Clinically availableHemoccult II: 37.1 (19.7-54.6)Hemoccult II: 97.7 (97.3-98)-Hemoccult II: 3.3176


HemoccultSensa: 79.4 (64.3-94.5)HemoccultSensa: 86.7 (85.9-87.4)
HemoccultSensa: 3.8277
FITClinically available79 (69-86)3294 (92-95)3228 (24.6-31.7)3321.6577
sDNA*Clinically available92.3 (83-97.5)5789.8 (88.9-90.7)5742.4 (38.9-46)57492.7277
miRNAIn developmentmiR-92: 89 (83-94)657065--
mSEPT9Clinically available48.2 (32.4-63.6)6691.5 (89.7-93.1)7811.2 (7.2-15.7)28273-44579,80
Fecal proteinIn developmentCalprotectin: 6770Calprotectin: 7670Calprotectin: 2570-


M2PK: 79 (73-83)75M2PK: 80 (73-86)75M2PK: -

CRC, colorectal cancer; CI, confidence interval; gFOBT, guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; sDNA, stool DNA; miRNA, microRNA.

*sDNA panel: K-RAS point mutations, aberrantly methylated NDRG4 and BMP3, β-actin, and a human hemoglobin immunochemical assay.


Subgroup Sensitivities for Stool DNA and Fecal Immunochemical Test


sDNA sensitivity, % (95% CI)FIT sensitivity, % (95% CI)
Stage I-III CRC93.3 (83.8-98.2)72 (60.3-83.9)
Any CRC92.3 (83-97.5)73.8 (61.5-84.0)
Proximal cancer*90 (73.5-97.9)67 (47.2-82.7)
Distal cancer*94 (80.8-99.3)80 (63.1-91.6)
CRC & high grade dysplasia83.7 (75.1-90.2)63.5 (53.5-72.7)
Advanced precancerous lesions†42.4 (38.9-46.0)23.8 (20.8-27.0)

Adapted from Imperiale TF, et al. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1287-1297, with permission from Massachusetts Medical Society.57

sDNA, stool DNA; CI, confidence interval; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; CRC, colorectal cancer.

*95% CIs calculated by the authors using exact method;

†Advanced adenoma with high grade dysplasia, with ≥25% villous histologic features, or measuring ≥1 cm or a sessile serrated polyp ≥1 cm.


References

Go to
  1. Ferlay, J, Shin, HR, Bray, F, Forman, D, Mathers, C, and Parkin, DM (2010). Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 127, 2893-2917.
    CrossRef
  2. Siegel, RL, Miller, KD, and Jemal, A (2015). Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 65, 5-29.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Edwards, BK, Noone, AM, and Mariotto, AB (2014). Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 120, 1290-1314.
    KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Lockhart-Mummery, JP, and Dukes, C (1928). The precancerous changes in the rectum and colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 36, 591-596.
  5. Fearon, ER, and Vogelstein, B (1990). A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell. 61, 759-767.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Winawer, SJ, Zauber, AG, and Ho, MN (1993). Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 329, 1977-1981.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Brenner, H, Chang-Claude, J, Seiler, CM, Rickert, A, and Hoffmeister, M (2011). Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med. 154, 22-30.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. DeSantis, CE, Lin, CC, and Mariotto, AB (2014). Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 64, 252-271.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Schreuders, EH, Ruco, A, and Rabeneck, L (2015). Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 64, 1637-1649.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013). Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use: United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 62, 881-888.
  11. Gupta, S, Sussman, DA, and Doubeni, CA (2014). Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved. J Natl Cancer Inst. 106, dju032.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Rex, DK, Johnson, DA, and Anderson, JC (2009). American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 104, 739-750.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Burt, RW, Cannon, JA, and David, DS (2013). Colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 11, 1538-1575.
    Pubmed
  14. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2008). Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 149, 627-637.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Levin, B, Lieberman, DA, and McFarland, B (2008). Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 134, 1570-1595.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. DeBourcy, AC, Lichtenberger, S, Felton, S, Butterfield, KT, Ahnen, DJ, and Denberg, TD (2008). Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 23, 169-174.
    CrossRef
  17. Shokar, NK, Carlson, CA, and Weller, SC (2010). Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population. Ann Fam Med. 8, 141-150.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Inadomi, JM, Vijan, S, and Janz, NK (2012). Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 172, 575-582.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Zapka, J, Klabunde, CN, Taplin, S, Yuan, G, Ransohoff, D, and Kobrin, S (2012). Screening colonoscopy in the US: attitudes and practices of primary care physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 27, 1150-1158.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Denberg, TD, Melhado, TV, and Coombes, JM (2005). Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med. 20, 989-995.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  21. Day, LW, Kwon, A, Inadomi, JM, Walter, LC, and Somsouk, M (2011). Adverse events in older patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 74, 885-896.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  22. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (1996). Guide to clinical preventive services: report of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins
  23. Mandel, JS, Bond, JH, and Church, TR (1993). Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 328, 1365-1371.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Libby, G, Brewster, DH, and McClements, PL (2012). The impact of population-based faecal occult blood test screening on colorectal cancer mortality: a matched cohort study. Br J Cancer. 107, 255-259.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  25. Scholefield, JH, Moss, SM, Mangham, CM, Whynes, DK, and Hardcastle, JD (2012). Nottingham trial of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up. Gut. 61, 1036-1040.
    CrossRef
  26. Shaukat, A, Mongin, SJ, and Geisser, MS (2013). Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 369, 1106-1114.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Allison, JE, Tekawa, IS, Ransom, LJ, and Adrain, AL (1996). A comparison of fecal occult-blood tests for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 334, 155-159.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Church, TR, Ederer, F, and Mandel, JS (1997). Fecal occult blood screening in the Minnesota study: sensitivity of the screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst. 89, 1440-1448.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Lang, CA, and Ransohoff, DF (1994). Fecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: is mortality reduced by chance selection for screening colonoscopy?. JAMA. 271, 1011-1013.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Ederer, F, Church, TR, and Mandel, JS (1997). Fecal occult blood screening in the Minnesota study: role of chance detection of lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 89, 1423-1428.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Allison, JE, Fraser, CG, Halloran, SP, and Young, GP (2014). Population screening for colorectal cancer means getting FIT: the past, present, and future of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT). Gut Liver. 8, 117-130.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  32. Lee, JK, Liles, EG, Bent, S, Levin, TR, and Corley, DA (2014). Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 160, 171.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Chiu, HM, Lee, YC, and Tu, CH (2013). Association between early stage colon neoplasms and false-negative results from the fecal immunochemical test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 11, 832-838.e2.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. de Wijkerslooth, TR, Stoop, EM, and Bossuyt, PM (2012). Immunochemical fecal occult blood testing is equally sensitive for proximal and distal advanced neoplasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 107, 1570-1578.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Quintero, E, Castells, A, and Bujanda, L (2012). Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 366, 697-706.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. VA Office of Research and Development (Array). Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical test in reducing mortality from colorectal cancer (CONFIRM). ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet].[last updated 2015 Jul 23; cited 2015 Jul 30]
  37. Guittet, L, Bouvier, V, and Mariotte, N (2009). Comparison of a guaiac and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test for the detection of colonic lesions according to lesion type and location. Br J Cancer. 100, 1230-1235.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  38. Cole, SR, and Young, GP (2001). Effect of dietary restriction on participation in faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer. Med J Aust. 175, 195-198.
    Pubmed
  39. Cole, SR, Young, GP, Esterman, A, Cadd, B, and Morcom, J (2003). A randomised trial of the impact of new faecal haemoglobin test technologies on population participation in screening for colorectal cancer. J Med Screen. 10, 117-122.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  40. van Rossum, LG, van Rijn, AF, and van Oijen, MG (2009). False negative fecal occult blood tests due to delayed sample return in colorectal cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 125, 746-750.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Wong, CK, Fedorak, RN, Prosser, CI, Stewart, ME, van Zanten, SV, and Sadowski, DC (2012). The sensitivity and specificity of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced colonic adenomas and cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 27, 1657-1664.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Vogelstein, B, and Kinzler, KW (1993). The multistep nature of cancer. Trends Genet. 9, 138-141.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  43. Kinzler, KW, and Vogelstein, B (1996). Lessons from hereditary colorectal cancer. Cell. 87, 159-170.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Ahlquist, DA, Harrington, JJ, Burgart, LJ, and Roche, PC (2000). Morphometric analysis of the “mucocellular layer” overlying colorectal cancer and normal mucosa: relevance to exfoliation and stool screening. Hum Pathol. 31, 51-57.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Ahlquist, DA, Skoletsky, JE, and Boynton, KA (2000). Colorectal cancer screening by detection of altered human DNA in stool: feasibility of a multitarget assay panel. Gastroenterology. 119, 1219-1227.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Dong, SM, Traverso, G, and Johnson, C (2001). Detecting colorectal cancer in stool with the use of multiple genetic targets. J Natl Cancer Inst. 93, 858-865.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  47. Syngal, S, Stoffel, E, and Chung, D (2006). Detection of stool DNA mutations before and after treatment of colorectal neoplasia. Cancer. 106, 277-283.
    CrossRef
  48. Imperiale, TF, Ransohoff, DF, Itzkowitz, SH, Turnbull, BA, Ross, ME, and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (2004). Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal-cancer screening in an average-risk population. N Engl J Med. 351, 2704-2714.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  49. Ahlquist, DA, Sargent, DJ, and Loprinzi, CL (2008). Stool DNA and occult blood testing for screen detection of colorectal neoplasia. Ann Intern Med. 149, 441-450.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  50. Zou, H, Harrington, JJ, Klatt, KK, and Ahlquist, DA (2006). A sensitive method to quantify human long DNA in stool: relevance to colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 15, 1115-1119.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  51. Itzkowitz, S, Brand, R, and Jandorf, L (2008). A simplified, noninvasive stool DNA test for colorectal cancer detection. Am J Gastroenterol. 103, 2862-2870.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  52. Ahlquist, DA, Zou, H, and Domanico, M (2012). Next-generation stool DNA test accurately detects colorectal cancer and large adenomas. Gastroenterology. 142, 248-256.
    CrossRef
  53. Lidgard, GP, Domanico, MJ, and Bruinsma, JJ (2013). Clinical performance of an automated stool DNA assay for detection of colorectal neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 11, 1313-1318.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  54. Diehl, F, Schmidt, K, and Durkee, KH (2008). Analysis of mutations in DNA isolated from plasma and stool of colorectal cancer patients. Gastroenterology. 135, 489-498.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  55. Zou, H, Taylor, WR, and Harrington, JJ (2009). High detection rates of colorectal neoplasia by stool DNA testing with a novel digital melt curve assay. Gastroenterology. 136, 459-470.
    CrossRef
  56. Zou, H, Allawi, H, and Cao, X (2012). Quantification of methylated markers with a multiplex methylation-specific technology. Clin Chem. 58, 375-383.
    CrossRef
  57. Imperiale, TF, Ransohoff, DF, and Itzkowitz, SH (2014). Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 370, 1287-1297.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  58. Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I, Kuntz, KM, Knudsen, AB, Wilschut, JA, Zauber, AG, and van Ballegooijen, M (2010). Stool DNA testing to screen for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 153, 368-377.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  59. Skally, M, Hanly, P, and Sharp, L (2013). Cost effectiveness of fecal DNA screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 11, 181-192.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  60. Patel, SS, and Kilgore, ML (2015). Cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies. Cancer Control. 22, 248-258.
    Pubmed
  61. Exact Sciences (2015). Exact Sciences provides update on strong launch trajectory of Cologuard [Internet].[cited 2015 Jun 25].
    Available from: http://www.exactsciences.com/about/latest-news/update-on-strong-launch-trajectory-of-cologuard?
  62. Yang, W, Lee, DY, and Ben-David, Y (2011). The roles of microRNAs in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis. Int J Physiol Pathophysiol Pharmacol. 3, 140-155.
    Pubmed KoreaMed
  63. Koga, Y, Yasunaga, M, and Takahashi, A (2010). MicroRNA expression profiling of exfoliated colonocytes isolated from feces for colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 3, 1435-1442.
    CrossRef
  64. Wu, CW, Ng, SS, and Dong, YJ (2012). Detection of miR-92a and miR-21 in stool samples as potential screening biomarkers for colorectal cancer and polyps. Gut. 61, 739-745.
    CrossRef
  65. Ng, EK, Chong, WW, and Jin, H (2009). Differential expression of microRNAs in plasma of patients with colorectal cancer: a potential marker for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 58, 1375-1381.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  66. Church, TR, Wandell, M, and Lofton-Day, C (2014). Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut. 63, 317-325.
    KoreaMed
  67. Ahlquist, DA, Taylor, WR, and Mahoney, DW (2012). The stool DNA test is more accurate than the plasma septin 9 test in detecting colorectal neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 10, 272-277.e1.
    CrossRef
  68. Jin, P, Kang, Q, and Wang, X (2015). Performance of a second-generation methylated SEPT9 test in detecting colorectal neoplasm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 30, 830-833.
    CrossRef
  69. Dickinson, BT, Kisiel, J, Ahlquist, DA, and Grady, WM (2015). Molecular markers for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 64, 1485-1494.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  70. Hoff, G, Grotmol, T, Thiis-Evensen, E, Bretthauer, M, Gondal, G, and Vatn, MH (2004). Testing for faecal calprotectin (PhiCal) in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: comparison with an immunochemical test for occult blood (FlexSure OBT). Gut. 53, 1329-1333.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  71. Shastri, YM, Loitsch, S, and Hoepffner, N (2008). Comparison of an established simple office-based immunological FOBT with fecal tumor pyruvate kinase type M2 (M2-PK) for colorectal cancer screening: prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 103, 1496-1504.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  72. Tonus, C, Sellinger, M, Koss, K, and Neupert, G (2012). Faecal pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2 for colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 18, 4004-4011.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  73. Haug, U, Rothenbacher, D, Wente, MN, Seiler, CM, Stegmaier, C, and Brenner, H (2007). Tumour M2-PK as a stool marker for colorectal cancer: comparative analysis in a large sample of unselected older adults vs colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 96, 1329-1334.
    Pubmed KoreaMed
  74. Naumann, M, Schaum, B, and Oremek, GM (2004). Faecal pyruvate kinase type M2: a valid screening parameter for colorectal cancer? Preliminary results from a multicenter comparative study. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 129, 1806-1807.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  75. Uppara, M, Adaba, F, and Askari, A (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of pyruvate kinase M2 isoenzymatic assay in diagnosing colorectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 13, 48.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  76. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2015). Clinical laboratory fee schedule 2015 [Internet].[cited 2015 Jul 30].
    Available from: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/Clini-calLabFeeSched/clinlab.html
  77. Ahlquist, DA (2015). Multi-target stool DNA test: a new high bar for non-invasive screening. Dig Dis Sci. 60, 623-633.
    CrossRef
  78. Church, TR, Wandell, M, and Lofton-Day, C (2014). Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut. 63, 317-325.
    KoreaMed
  79. Barton, A (2010). Blood test for colon cancer removes the ‘ick’ factor [Internet].[cited 2015 Jul 30].
    Available from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/blood-test-for-colon-cancer-removes-the-ick-factor/article572600/
  80. (2015). StatLabs [Internet].[cited 2015 Jul 30].
    Available from: http://www.estatlabs.com/products/ColoVantage-%28methylated-Septin-9-biomarker-for-colon-cancer-screen-ing%29.html.81
  81. Greegor, DH (1967). Diagnosis of large-bowel cancer in the asymptomatic patient. JAMA. 201, 943-945.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  82. Hill, MJ, Morson, BC, and Bussey, HJ (1978). Aetiology of adenoma: carcinoma sequence in large bowel. Lancet. 1, 245-247.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  83. Barrows, GH, Burton, RM, Jarrett, DD, Russell, GG, Alford, MD, and Songster, CL (1978). Immunochemical detection of human blood in feces. Am J Clin Pathol. 69, 342-346.
    Pubmed
  84. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2003). Decision memo for screening immunoassay fecal-occult blood test (CAG-00180N) [Internet].[cited 2015 Jul 30].
    Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=87&TAId=20&IsPopup=y&bc=AAAAAAAAAgAAAA%3D%3D&

Article

Review

Gut and Liver 2016; 10(2): 204-211

Published online March 15, 2016 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl15420

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Stool DNA and Other Noninvasive Modalities

James R. Bailey*, Ashish Aggarwal*,†, and Thomas F. Imperiale*,‡,§

*Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA, †Community Health Network, Indianapolis, IN, USA, ‡Regenstrief Institute Inc. and Center of Innovation, Indianapolis, IN, USA, §Health Services Research and Development, Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Correspondence to: James R. Bailey, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, 1120 West Michigan Street, Gatch Hall Room 626, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA, Tel: +1-317-988-2522, Fax: +1-317-278-2650, E-mail: jarobail@iupui.edu

Received: August 27, 2015; Accepted: October 29, 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer screening dates to the discovery of pre-cancerous adenomatous tissue. Screening modalities and guidelines directed at prevention and early detection have evolved and resulted in a significant decrease in the prevalence and mortality of colorectal cancer via direct visualization or using specific markers. Despite continued efforts and an overall reduction in deaths attributed to colorectal cancer over the last 25 years, colorectal cancer remains one of the most common causes of malignancy-associated deaths. In attempt to further reduce the prevalence of colorectal cancer and associated deaths, continued improvement in screening quality and adherence remains key. Noninvasive screening modalities are actively being explored. Identification of specific genetic alterations in the adenoma-cancer sequence allow for the study and development of noninvasive screening modalities beyond guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing which target specific alterations or a panel of alterations. The stool DNA test is the first noninvasive screening tool that targets both human hemoglobin and specific genetic alterations. In this review we discuss stool DNA and other commercially available noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities in addition to other targets which previously have been or are currently under study.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer, Colorectal cancer screening, sDNA, Stool DNA

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer both worldwide (1.23 million annual cases) and in the United States (132,700 annual cases).1,2 While CRC mortality in the United States has been falling since 1985, attributed to both uptake of screening and advancements in treatment, an estimated 49,700 die annually,3 suggesting the need for continued screening efforts. The basis of CRC screening dates to the discovery of precancerous adenomatous tissue,4 which led to the understanding of development of CRC through the “adenoma-carcinoma” sequence rather than directly arising from the colorectal mucosa.5,6 Screening allows for early detection of CRC and removal of precancerous lesions, leading to reductions in cancer incidence and mortality.7,8

Despite strong evidence for CRC screening,9 adherence to screening in the United States remains a challenge as only 65% of the eligible U.S. population is up-to-date with screening, while nearly 28% has never been screened.10 Challenges in increasing adherence have been attributed to patient and provider preferences, available resources, and healthcare infrastructure.11 Guidelines from several professional organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Multi-Society Task Force, American College of Gastroenterology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, provide both invasive and noninvasive options for CRC screening. While the American College of Gastroenterology considers colonoscopy to be preferred, other professional organizations recommend all options without preference.12-15 Despite these recommendations and patients’ preference for noninvasive screening in several studies, providers are more likely to recommend colonoscopy and may not present other options.16-18 Patients who choose colonoscopy report doing so because of its superior single-application sensitivity, as reflected in statistics on its use,19 while those that do not choose it report many reasons including difficulty in scheduling, cost, and missed work time in addition to concerns of modesty, procedure discomfort, and bowel preparation.20 Colonoscopy also carries risk, such as bleeding, perforation, and cardiorespiratory complications. Although the risks are low, they are particularly relevant for patients with comorbid conditions21 and may affect adherence. In an attempt to improve CRC screening and make available additional options without the risks and requirements of colonoscopy, noninvasive screening modalities are actively being explored.

In this review, noninvasive CRC screening modalities (Table 1, Fig. 1) will be discussed with a focus on stool DNA (sDNA). We will discuss the evolution of sDNA from proof of concept to its role in the current screening landscape. We will also briefly discuss other noninvasive screening tests, both established and in development.

GUAIAC-BASED FECAL OCCULT BLOOD TEST AND FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TEST

Noninvasive CRC screening in the United States started with annual guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT), which was first recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 1996,22 based on evidence from population-based randomized trials.23-25 gFOBT works by indirectly identifying hemoglobin through a peroxidase reaction. Annual gFOBT reduces CRCs mortality by as much as 33% over a 13-year follow-up and by 32% in 30-year follow up.23,26 Despite its mortality reduction, gFOBT has several limitations. CRC sensitivity of a single round of gFOBT is reported as 30% to 40% indicating the need for annual testing which improves sensitivity to 90% over a 5-year period.27,28 Although annual testing has a high programmatic sensitivity, some of the sensitivity is due to false positive results from other causes of occult bleeding, which leads to serendipitous detection of neoplastic findings.29,30 In addition to the high false positive rate, gFOBT has the disadvantages of low sensitivity for advanced adenomas, the need for dietary and medication restrictions, and a requirement for the collection of three consecutive stool samples for testing. These limitations led to the development of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

Through the use of globin-specific antibodies, FIT allows improved stool-based detection of human hemoglobin.31 FIT exists as both a qualitative and quantitative test with several qualitative tests available in the United States. Given the number of tests and varying cutoff levels for a positive result, interpretation of these tests and comparisons is challenging. A recently published meta-analysis showed FIT sensitivity and specificity for CRC to be 71% and 94%, among studies in which colonoscopy was the reference standard.32 In a large study in Taiwan, FIT samples were obtained in 4,045 subjects the day prior to colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy-based findings were then compared to the previously obtained FIT with findings of FIT sensitivity for non-advanced adenoma, advanced adenoma, and CRC of 10.6%, 28.0%, and 78.6%.33 Sensitivity varied based on location of left-sided versus right-sided lesions, with a decrease in the detection of more proximal lesions, although these findings have not held true in other studies.33,34 Large-scale, population-based trials comparing annual FIT to colonoscopy are in progress in Spain and the United States.35,36 Despite improved sensitivity in comparison to gFOBT,37 the need for only a single sample, and no dietary or medication restrictions,38,39 FIT has limitations, one of which is the decrease in sample reliability with prolongation of time from collection to analysis as positive FIT results decline from 8.7% at 1-4 days to 6% at ≥5 days, and 4.1% at ≥7 days.40 Other limitations include poor sensitivity for advanced adenomas33 and an unclear optimal threshold for hemoglobin detection.41

STOOL DNA TESTING

To further improve noninvasive screening, other methods have been and continue to be pursued. Development of CRC is associated with a series of progressive, cumulative mutations, including inactivation of tumor suppressor genes adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) and P53 and activation of the oncogene K-RAS.42,43 Identification of specific genetic alterations in CRC tumorigenesis and the knowledge that colonocytes are continuously shed set the stage for development of stool DNA (sDNA) as a screening test for CRC.44

The proof-of-concept study of sDNA for CRC screening by Ahlquist and colleagues involved 22 patients with known CRC, 11 with adenomas ≥1 cm, and 28 with a negative colonoscopy who had stool samples analyzed with a panel of 15 point mutations of K-RAS, p-53, APC, and BAT-26, a microsatellite instability marker. The panel was 91% sensitive for CRC and 82% sensitive for adenomas ≥1 cm with a specificity of 93%; analyzable DNA was obtained from all samples.45 Additional studies further supported use of sDNA for CRC screening by showing that all mutations within stool samples were also present in CRC tissue samples, and that specific tumor markers were no longer detectable in stool samples following surgical resection of CRC.46,47

Two screening population-based studies were conducted to evaluate first-generation sDNA test performance, both of which compared it to Hemoccult II (a gFOBT) and used colonoscopy as the reference standard. In one study, 2,507 average risk asymptomatic patients aged 50 or older were tested with a first-generation DNA panel, which included 21 point mutations of K-RAS, APC, BAT-26, and a DNA integrity assay. The sDNA panel had a CRC sensitivity of 52% versus 13% for Hemoccult II; sensitivity for high grade dysplastic adenomas was 32.5% for sDNA versus 15% for Hemoccult II, while respective CRC specificities were 94.4% and 95.2%.48 A second study using the same DNA panel in 4,482 average risk asymptomatic patients aged 50 or older showed a CRC sensitivity of 25% versus 50% for Hemoccult and 75% for the more sensitive gFOBT HemoccultSensa.49 Due to poor performance of the DNA panel, a second DNA panel was used during the latter part of the study that included APC and K-RAS mutations and methylation of the vimentin gene. This second panel showed higher sensitivity for CRC (58%) and in particular, for adenomas ≥1 cm (46%) when compared with Hemoccult II (10%) and HemoccultSensa (17%).49 These findings led to sDNA inclusion in screening criteria by some organizations12 but the test’s relatively low sensitivity and high cost resulted in only rare use in clinical practice.15

Several advances were made to improve both the marker panel and analytical methods to identify mutated DNA, resulting in greater sensitivity for the second generation sDNA tests. Long DNA degrades in storage, up to 75% in 1 day,50 indicating the need for human DNA preservation for improved detection. Addition of a stabilizing buffer to samples prevented bacterial degradation of human DNA.50 Identification of new markers51,52 and improvements in the analytical process including automation53 and development of advanced DNA stool extraction and mutant DNA detection techniques52,54,55 resulted in greater sensitivity, setting the stage for a new sDNA panel.

The second generation panel included four methylated genes (vimentin, NDRG4, BMP3, and TFPI2), a mutant form of KRAS, the α-actin gene (to serve as a control for specimen quality), and a hemoglobin assay. This panel was tested on archived stool specimens. Target gene sequences were identified directly by hybridization with oligonucleotide probes. These probes were identified by Sera-Mag carboxylate modified beads which were then eluted out by use of a magnetic rack. Methylated markers were quantified using the Quantitative Allele-specific Real-time Target and Signal Amplification Assay (QuARTS), a highly sensitive polymerase based DNA amplification process that utilizes invasive cleavage-based signal amplification.56 A hemoglobin assay was added, which was not affected by stool storage. This new panel was initially tested on 252 patients with CRC, 133 with adenomas ≥1 cm, and 293 with normal (i.e., “negative”) colonoscopy results served as controls. sDNA testing was 85% sensitive for CRC and 54% sensitive for adenomas ≥1 cm with a specificity of 90%.52 Anatomical location of CRC and adenoma did not affect the panel’s sensitivity.52 Further, sensitivity increased with adenoma size; as evidenced by sensitivity of 54% for adenomas ≥1 cm, 63% for adenomas >1 cm, 77% for adenomas >2 cm, 86% for adenomas >3 cm, and 92% for adenomas >4 cm.52 These findings provided impetus to test this new panel in a large screening trial using a similar marker panel and analytical process.

In the screening trial, 9,899 asymptomatic average risk individuals aged 50 to 84 years underwent testing with a multitarget sDNA panel and a comparator commercially-available FIT prior to undergoing screening colonoscopy, which served as the reference standard.57 The multitarget sDNA panel consisted of K-RAS point mutations, aberrantly methylated NDRG4 and BMP3, β-actin as a control indicator of DNA quantity, and a human hemoglobin immunochemical assay. The sDNA panel had a cancer sensitivity of 92.3% in comparison to 73.8% for FIT and a sensitivity of 42.4% for advanced precancerous polyps defined as advanced adenomas (adenomas with high grade dysplasia, with >25% villous histologic features, or measuring ≥1 cm) or sessile serrated polyp ≥1 cm versus 23.8% for FIT. The multitarget sDNA panel was significantly more sensitive than FIT although less specific (86.6% for sDNA vs 94.9% for FIT). Subgroup analyses (Table 2) showed that sDNA sensitivity did not vary with CRC stage or location whereas FIT sensitivity was lower for proximal cancers. In addition, sDNA was more sensitive than FIT for higher risk advanced precancerous lesions.57 These favorable results led to approval of this multitarget sDNA panel for CRC screening by the Food and Drug Administration in August of 2014 and its current commercial availability for CRC screening.

As expected, additional challenges remain with the uptake of sDNA as a screening test. Although the FDA-recommended test interval is 3 years, there is no direct data from longitudinal studies to support appropriateness of this interval. Studies are in progress to address this important issue. Appropriate management of persons with a positive sDNA test but a “negative” colonoscopy is uncertain and requires clarification. Acceptance of sDNA by patients and providers in clinical practice is yet to be determined. Additional concerns include the cost-effectiveness of sDNA testing every 3 years versus other tests and strategies. Studies have suggested that while sDNA is more cost-effective than no CRC screening, it is less cost-effective when compared to other screening strategies including FOBT, FIT, and endoscopic strategies58-60 However, cost-effectiveness may not be unfavorable if sDNA can capture more of the eligible population and result in improved adherence to CRC screening.58 Early data shows that as of June 2015, approximately 36,000 patients have been screened with sDNA (data from Exact Sciences Corp.) since it became clinically available,61 36% of whom were screened for the first time for CRC. There have been nearly 80,000 orders placed by 13,800 physicians with a 73% test completion rate (April to June 2015).61 Physician and patient selection of sDNA for CRC screening continues to increase as provider and patient education improves and insurance coverage for the test expands.

OTHER NONINVASIVE MARKERS

Other individual and panels of markers have been explored for their potential use as noninvasive screening tests, including microRNAs (miRNAs), plasma-based DNA, and stool proteins. We discuss these briefly in turn.

1. MicroRNAs

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short, endogenous, noncoding RNAs that regulate gene expression, thereby affecting various processes in tumorigenesis, including angiogenesis and metastasis.62 There has been great interest in looking at the expression of various miRNAs for detection of colorectal neoplasia. miR-21 is the most studied oncogenic miRNA that is upregulated in colon cancer. Studies of its test characteristics have been inconsistent, with one study from Japan showing that the miR-21 expression was similar in colonocytes from healthy volunteers as compared to patients with CRC.63 Another study from 2012, however, showed that stool miR-21 expression was increased in CRC subjects as compared to healthy controls although expression was no different between subjects with adenomatous polyps and those without.64 Plasma levels of another miRNA, miR-92, were higher in subjects with CRC and the levels were significantly reduced after surgery in 10 CRC subjects. At a cutoff of 240 (relative expression in comparison to RNU6B snRNA), the sensitivity and specificity were 89% and 70%, respectively, in discriminating CRC subjects from controls.65 Significant issues remain with respect to the optimal miRNA isolation technique, endogenous controls for serum based miRNAs, and the need to obtain test characteristics from a screening population.

2. Plasma-based DNA markers

Plasma-based DNA-markers, especially genes with aberrant methylation such as the SEPT9 gene, have been evaluated as potential screening targets for CRC and advanced adenomas. A multicenter prospective trial involving nearly 8,000 screening population subjects showed that the CRC sensitivity and specificity of circulating methylated SEPT9 DNA (mSEPT9) were 48% and 91.5%, respectively, while sensitivity for advanced adenomas was just 11%.66 In a case-control study comparing the test characteristics of a multimarker test for sDNA and mSEPT9, mSEPT9 was found to have significantly lower sensitivity for detection of both CRC (60%) and adenomas >1 cm (14%) as compared with sDNA (87% CRC sensitivity and 82% adenoma sensitivity).67 A recent case-control study from China evaluating a plasma-based second generation mSEPT9 assay showed CRC sensitivity and specificity of 74.8% and 87.4%, while advanced adenoma sensitivity was 27.4%. In this study, mSEPT9 showed higher sensitivity than FIT for CRC but not for advanced adenomas.68 The lower sensitivity of plasma-based tests may be related to the requirement of biomarker release into the bloodstream via vascular invasion in tumorigenesis, which likely happens at a later stage as compared to exfoliation upon which stool-based tests are based.69 This observation may also explain lower sensitivity of plasma-based tests for detection of advanced adenomas as compared to CRC as vascular invasion occurs at a later stage in tumorigenesis. The place of mSEPT9 in the CRC screening landscape is uncertain at this time.

3. Stool-based proteins

Among stool-based proteins, fecal calprotectin and M2 pyruvate kinase (M2-PK, a cancer-related fecal protein) have been the two most studied fecal protein markers for CRC screening. In the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial involving 2,321 asymptomatic subjects, performance of calprotectin was inferior to FIT, with lower sensitivity for CRC (67% vs 75%), high risk adenoma (25% vs 32%), and lower specificity (76% vs 90%).70 Studies of fecal M2-PK have shown inconsistent results,71,72 with CRC sensitivity ranging from 68%73 to 85%74 among several studies with a cutoff value of 4 U/mL. Results have varied based on the positive cutoff value used, ranging from a sensitivity of 92.1% and specificity of 29.7% for a cutoff of 1 U/mL to a sensitivity of 11.8% and specificity of 97.3% for a cutoff of 30 U/mL.71 A recent meta-analysis of eight studies of M2-PK with a cutoff value of 4 U/mL showed a pooled CRC sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 79% (confidence interval [CI], 73% to 83%), 80% (CI, 73% to 86%), and 85% (CI, 82% to 88%), suggesting that this marker may have potential as a screening test.75 However, further studies are needed in a screening population to accurately quantify its test characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The past 15 years have seen improvement in the uptake of CRC screening and reduction in CRC incidence and mortality in the United States. While colonoscopy is currently the dominant screening test in the United States, there is considerable interest in the development of accurate noninvasive screening tests, with notable improvements in stool-based tests in particular. Both FIT and sDNA provide viable noninvasive options to colonoscopy for average-risk persons. Both tests provide several advantages over colonoscopy, including ease of completion, low cost, and low risk. Ongoing research of sDNA will quantify its uptake, adherence, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness of the 3-year testing interval. FIT and sDNA, should be included as options in discussions of CRC screening between provider and patient, with expectation of improved adherence to screening. Continued development of noninvasive tests, improved understanding of optimal screening intervals, and greater ability to risk stratify are likely to improve the efficiency of and adherence to CRC screening.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Grant support: The Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Author contributions:

James R. Bailey: Literature review, manuscript development, composition.

Ashish Aggarwal: Literature review, manuscript development, composition.

Thomas F. Imperiale: Literature review, manuscript development, critical review.

Fig 1.

Download
Figure 1.Timeline of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities. CMS, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; FOBT, fecal occult blood testing; sDNA, stool DNA; FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
Gut and Liver 2016; 10: 204-211https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl15420

Table 1 Selected Characteristics of Noninvasive Screening Tests

Screening testStatusCRC sensitivity, % (95% CI)CRC specificity, % (95% CI)Advanced Adenoma ≥1 cm sensitivity, % (95% CI)Cost, $
gFOBT27Clinically availableHemoccult II: 37.1 (19.7-54.6)Hemoccult II: 97.7 (97.3-98)-Hemoccult II: 3.3176


HemoccultSensa: 79.4 (64.3-94.5)HemoccultSensa: 86.7 (85.9-87.4)
HemoccultSensa: 3.8277
FITClinically available79 (69-86)3294 (92-95)3228 (24.6-31.7)3321.6577
sDNA*Clinically available92.3 (83-97.5)5789.8 (88.9-90.7)5742.4 (38.9-46)57492.7277
miRNAIn developmentmiR-92: 89 (83-94)657065--
mSEPT9Clinically available48.2 (32.4-63.6)6691.5 (89.7-93.1)7811.2 (7.2-15.7)28273-44579,80
Fecal proteinIn developmentCalprotectin: 6770Calprotectin: 7670Calprotectin: 2570-


M2PK: 79 (73-83)75M2PK: 80 (73-86)75M2PK: -

CRC, colorectal cancer; CI, confidence interval; gFOBT, guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; sDNA, stool DNA; miRNA, microRNA.

*sDNA panel: K-RAS point mutations, aberrantly methylated NDRG4 and BMP3, β-actin, and a human hemoglobin immunochemical assay.

Table 2 Subgroup Sensitivities for Stool DNA and Fecal Immunochemical Test


sDNA sensitivity, % (95% CI)FIT sensitivity, % (95% CI)
Stage I-III CRC93.3 (83.8-98.2)72 (60.3-83.9)
Any CRC92.3 (83-97.5)73.8 (61.5-84.0)
Proximal cancer*90 (73.5-97.9)67 (47.2-82.7)
Distal cancer*94 (80.8-99.3)80 (63.1-91.6)
CRC & high grade dysplasia83.7 (75.1-90.2)63.5 (53.5-72.7)
Advanced precancerous lesions†42.4 (38.9-46.0)23.8 (20.8-27.0)

Adapted from Imperiale TF, et al. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1287-1297, with permission from Massachusetts Medical Society.57

sDNA, stool DNA; CI, confidence interval; FIT, fecal immunochemical test; CRC, colorectal cancer.

*95% CIs calculated by the authors using exact method;

†Advanced adenoma with high grade dysplasia, with ≥25% villous histologic features, or measuring ≥1 cm or a sessile serrated polyp ≥1 cm.

References

  1. Ferlay, J, Shin, HR, Bray, F, Forman, D, Mathers, C, and Parkin, DM (2010). Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 127, 2893-2917.
    CrossRef
  2. Siegel, RL, Miller, KD, and Jemal, A (2015). Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 65, 5-29.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Edwards, BK, Noone, AM, and Mariotto, AB (2014). Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 120, 1290-1314.
    KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Lockhart-Mummery, JP, and Dukes, C (1928). The precancerous changes in the rectum and colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 36, 591-596.
  5. Fearon, ER, and Vogelstein, B (1990). A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell. 61, 759-767.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Winawer, SJ, Zauber, AG, and Ho, MN (1993). Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 329, 1977-1981.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Brenner, H, Chang-Claude, J, Seiler, CM, Rickert, A, and Hoffmeister, M (2011). Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med. 154, 22-30.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. DeSantis, CE, Lin, CC, and Mariotto, AB (2014). Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 64, 252-271.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Schreuders, EH, Ruco, A, and Rabeneck, L (2015). Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 64, 1637-1649.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013). Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use: United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 62, 881-888.
  11. Gupta, S, Sussman, DA, and Doubeni, CA (2014). Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved. J Natl Cancer Inst. 106, dju032.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Rex, DK, Johnson, DA, and Anderson, JC (2009). American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 104, 739-750.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Burt, RW, Cannon, JA, and David, DS (2013). Colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 11, 1538-1575.
    Pubmed
  14. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2008). Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 149, 627-637.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Levin, B, Lieberman, DA, and McFarland, B (2008). Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 134, 1570-1595.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. DeBourcy, AC, Lichtenberger, S, Felton, S, Butterfield, KT, Ahnen, DJ, and Denberg, TD (2008). Community-based preferences for stool cards versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 23, 169-174.
    CrossRef
  17. Shokar, NK, Carlson, CA, and Weller, SC (2010). Informed decision making changes test preferences for colorectal cancer screening in a diverse population. Ann Fam Med. 8, 141-150.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Inadomi, JM, Vijan, S, and Janz, NK (2012). Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 172, 575-582.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Zapka, J, Klabunde, CN, Taplin, S, Yuan, G, Ransohoff, D, and Kobrin, S (2012). Screening colonoscopy in the US: attitudes and practices of primary care physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 27, 1150-1158.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Denberg, TD, Melhado, TV, and Coombes, JM (2005). Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med. 20, 989-995.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  21. Day, LW, Kwon, A, Inadomi, JM, Walter, LC, and Somsouk, M (2011). Adverse events in older patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 74, 885-896.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  22. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (1996). Guide to clinical preventive services: report of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins
  23. Mandel, JS, Bond, JH, and Church, TR (1993). Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 328, 1365-1371.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Libby, G, Brewster, DH, and McClements, PL (2012). The impact of population-based faecal occult blood test screening on colorectal cancer mortality: a matched cohort study. Br J Cancer. 107, 255-259.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  25. Scholefield, JH, Moss, SM, Mangham, CM, Whynes, DK, and Hardcastle, JD (2012). Nottingham trial of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up. Gut. 61, 1036-1040.
    CrossRef
  26. Shaukat, A, Mongin, SJ, and Geisser, MS (2013). Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 369, 1106-1114.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  27. Allison, JE, Tekawa, IS, Ransom, LJ, and Adrain, AL (1996). A comparison of fecal occult-blood tests for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 334, 155-159.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Church, TR, Ederer, F, and Mandel, JS (1997). Fecal occult blood screening in the Minnesota study: sensitivity of the screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst. 89, 1440-1448.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Lang, CA, and Ransohoff, DF (1994). Fecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: is mortality reduced by chance selection for screening colonoscopy?. JAMA. 271, 1011-1013.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Ederer, F, Church, TR, and Mandel, JS (1997). Fecal occult blood screening in the Minnesota study: role of chance detection of lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 89, 1423-1428.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Allison, JE, Fraser, CG, Halloran, SP, and Young, GP (2014). Population screening for colorectal cancer means getting FIT: the past, present, and future of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT). Gut Liver. 8, 117-130.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  32. Lee, JK, Liles, EG, Bent, S, Levin, TR, and Corley, DA (2014). Accuracy of fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 160, 171.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Chiu, HM, Lee, YC, and Tu, CH (2013). Association between early stage colon neoplasms and false-negative results from the fecal immunochemical test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 11, 832-838.e2.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  34. de Wijkerslooth, TR, Stoop, EM, and Bossuyt, PM (2012). Immunochemical fecal occult blood testing is equally sensitive for proximal and distal advanced neoplasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 107, 1570-1578.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  35. Quintero, E, Castells, A, and Bujanda, L (2012). Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 366, 697-706.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. VA Office of Research and Development (Array). Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical test in reducing mortality from colorectal cancer (CONFIRM). ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet].[last updated 2015 Jul 23; cited 2015 Jul 30]
  37. Guittet, L, Bouvier, V, and Mariotte, N (2009). Comparison of a guaiac and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test for the detection of colonic lesions according to lesion type and location. Br J Cancer. 100, 1230-1235.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  38. Cole, SR, and Young, GP (2001). Effect of dietary restriction on participation in faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer. Med J Aust. 175, 195-198.
    Pubmed
  39. Cole, SR, Young, GP, Esterman, A, Cadd, B, and Morcom, J (2003). A randomised trial of the impact of new faecal haemoglobin test technologies on population participation in screening for colorectal cancer. J Med Screen. 10, 117-122.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  40. van Rossum, LG, van Rijn, AF, and van Oijen, MG (2009). False negative fecal occult blood tests due to delayed sample return in colorectal cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 125, 746-750.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  41. Wong, CK, Fedorak, RN, Prosser, CI, Stewart, ME, van Zanten, SV, and Sadowski, DC (2012). The sensitivity and specificity of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced colonic adenomas and cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 27, 1657-1664.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  42. Vogelstein, B, and Kinzler, KW (1993). The multistep nature of cancer. Trends Genet. 9, 138-141.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  43. Kinzler, KW, and Vogelstein, B (1996). Lessons from hereditary colorectal cancer. Cell. 87, 159-170.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  44. Ahlquist, DA, Harrington, JJ, Burgart, LJ, and Roche, PC (2000). Morphometric analysis of the “mucocellular layer” overlying colorectal cancer and normal mucosa: relevance to exfoliation and stool screening. Hum Pathol. 31, 51-57.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  45. Ahlquist, DA, Skoletsky, JE, and Boynton, KA (2000). Colorectal cancer screening by detection of altered human DNA in stool: feasibility of a multitarget assay panel. Gastroenterology. 119, 1219-1227.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  46. Dong, SM, Traverso, G, and Johnson, C (2001). Detecting colorectal cancer in stool with the use of multiple genetic targets. J Natl Cancer Inst. 93, 858-865.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  47. Syngal, S, Stoffel, E, and Chung, D (2006). Detection of stool DNA mutations before and after treatment of colorectal neoplasia. Cancer. 106, 277-283.
    CrossRef
  48. Imperiale, TF, Ransohoff, DF, Itzkowitz, SH, Turnbull, BA, Ross, ME, and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (2004). Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal-cancer screening in an average-risk population. N Engl J Med. 351, 2704-2714.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  49. Ahlquist, DA, Sargent, DJ, and Loprinzi, CL (2008). Stool DNA and occult blood testing for screen detection of colorectal neoplasia. Ann Intern Med. 149, 441-450.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  50. Zou, H, Harrington, JJ, Klatt, KK, and Ahlquist, DA (2006). A sensitive method to quantify human long DNA in stool: relevance to colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 15, 1115-1119.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  51. Itzkowitz, S, Brand, R, and Jandorf, L (2008). A simplified, noninvasive stool DNA test for colorectal cancer detection. Am J Gastroenterol. 103, 2862-2870.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  52. Ahlquist, DA, Zou, H, and Domanico, M (2012). Next-generation stool DNA test accurately detects colorectal cancer and large adenomas. Gastroenterology. 142, 248-256.
    CrossRef
  53. Lidgard, GP, Domanico, MJ, and Bruinsma, JJ (2013). Clinical performance of an automated stool DNA assay for detection of colorectal neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 11, 1313-1318.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  54. Diehl, F, Schmidt, K, and Durkee, KH (2008). Analysis of mutations in DNA isolated from plasma and stool of colorectal cancer patients. Gastroenterology. 135, 489-498.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  55. Zou, H, Taylor, WR, and Harrington, JJ (2009). High detection rates of colorectal neoplasia by stool DNA testing with a novel digital melt curve assay. Gastroenterology. 136, 459-470.
    CrossRef
  56. Zou, H, Allawi, H, and Cao, X (2012). Quantification of methylated markers with a multiplex methylation-specific technology. Clin Chem. 58, 375-383.
    CrossRef
  57. Imperiale, TF, Ransohoff, DF, and Itzkowitz, SH (2014). Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 370, 1287-1297.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  58. Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I, Kuntz, KM, Knudsen, AB, Wilschut, JA, Zauber, AG, and van Ballegooijen, M (2010). Stool DNA testing to screen for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 153, 368-377.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  59. Skally, M, Hanly, P, and Sharp, L (2013). Cost effectiveness of fecal DNA screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 11, 181-192.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  60. Patel, SS, and Kilgore, ML (2015). Cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies. Cancer Control. 22, 248-258.
    Pubmed
  61. Exact Sciences (2015). Exact Sciences provides update on strong launch trajectory of Cologuard [Internet].[cited 2015 Jun 25]. Available from: http://www.exactsciences.com/about/latest-news/update-on-strong-launch-trajectory-of-cologuard?
  62. Yang, W, Lee, DY, and Ben-David, Y (2011). The roles of microRNAs in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis. Int J Physiol Pathophysiol Pharmacol. 3, 140-155.
    Pubmed KoreaMed
  63. Koga, Y, Yasunaga, M, and Takahashi, A (2010). MicroRNA expression profiling of exfoliated colonocytes isolated from feces for colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 3, 1435-1442.
    CrossRef
  64. Wu, CW, Ng, SS, and Dong, YJ (2012). Detection of miR-92a and miR-21 in stool samples as potential screening biomarkers for colorectal cancer and polyps. Gut. 61, 739-745.
    CrossRef
  65. Ng, EK, Chong, WW, and Jin, H (2009). Differential expression of microRNAs in plasma of patients with colorectal cancer: a potential marker for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 58, 1375-1381.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  66. Church, TR, Wandell, M, and Lofton-Day, C (2014). Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut. 63, 317-325.
    KoreaMed
  67. Ahlquist, DA, Taylor, WR, and Mahoney, DW (2012). The stool DNA test is more accurate than the plasma septin 9 test in detecting colorectal neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 10, 272-277.e1.
    CrossRef
  68. Jin, P, Kang, Q, and Wang, X (2015). Performance of a second-generation methylated SEPT9 test in detecting colorectal neoplasm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 30, 830-833.
    CrossRef
  69. Dickinson, BT, Kisiel, J, Ahlquist, DA, and Grady, WM (2015). Molecular markers for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 64, 1485-1494.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  70. Hoff, G, Grotmol, T, Thiis-Evensen, E, Bretthauer, M, Gondal, G, and Vatn, MH (2004). Testing for faecal calprotectin (PhiCal) in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: comparison with an immunochemical test for occult blood (FlexSure OBT). Gut. 53, 1329-1333.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  71. Shastri, YM, Loitsch, S, and Hoepffner, N (2008). Comparison of an established simple office-based immunological FOBT with fecal tumor pyruvate kinase type M2 (M2-PK) for colorectal cancer screening: prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 103, 1496-1504.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  72. Tonus, C, Sellinger, M, Koss, K, and Neupert, G (2012). Faecal pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2 for colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 18, 4004-4011.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  73. Haug, U, Rothenbacher, D, Wente, MN, Seiler, CM, Stegmaier, C, and Brenner, H (2007). Tumour M2-PK as a stool marker for colorectal cancer: comparative analysis in a large sample of unselected older adults vs colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 96, 1329-1334.
    Pubmed KoreaMed
  74. Naumann, M, Schaum, B, and Oremek, GM (2004). Faecal pyruvate kinase type M2: a valid screening parameter for colorectal cancer? Preliminary results from a multicenter comparative study. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 129, 1806-1807.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  75. Uppara, M, Adaba, F, and Askari, A (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of pyruvate kinase M2 isoenzymatic assay in diagnosing colorectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 13, 48.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  76. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2015). Clinical laboratory fee schedule 2015 [Internet].[cited 2015 Jul 30]. Available from: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/Clini-calLabFeeSched/clinlab.html
  77. Ahlquist, DA (2015). Multi-target stool DNA test: a new high bar for non-invasive screening. Dig Dis Sci. 60, 623-633.
    CrossRef
  78. Church, TR, Wandell, M, and Lofton-Day, C (2014). Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut. 63, 317-325.
    KoreaMed
  79. Barton, A (2010). Blood test for colon cancer removes the ‘ick’ factor [Internet].[cited 2015 Jul 30]. Available from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/blood-test-for-colon-cancer-removes-the-ick-factor/article572600/
  80. (2015). StatLabs [Internet].[cited 2015 Jul 30]. Available from: http://www.estatlabs.com/products/ColoVantage-%28methylated-Septin-9-biomarker-for-colon-cancer-screen-ing%29.html.81
  81. Greegor, DH (1967). Diagnosis of large-bowel cancer in the asymptomatic patient. JAMA. 201, 943-945.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  82. Hill, MJ, Morson, BC, and Bussey, HJ (1978). Aetiology of adenoma: carcinoma sequence in large bowel. Lancet. 1, 245-247.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  83. Barrows, GH, Burton, RM, Jarrett, DD, Russell, GG, Alford, MD, and Songster, CL (1978). Immunochemical detection of human blood in feces. Am J Clin Pathol. 69, 342-346.
    Pubmed
  84. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2003). Decision memo for screening immunoassay fecal-occult blood test (CAG-00180N) [Internet].[cited 2015 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=87&TAId=20&IsPopup=y&bc=AAAAAAAAAgAAAA%3D%3D&
Gut and Liver

Vol.17 No.1
January, 2023

Frequency : Bimonthly

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Related articles in Gut and Liver

powered by TREND MD

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office